Journal Pre-proof

99 Percenters: An examination of the misconduct careers of the

Most violent and disruptive incarcerated delinquents

H. Daniel Butler, Jonathan W. Caudill, Jessica M. Craig, Matt

DeLisi, Chad R. Trulson

PII: S1359-1789(20)30224-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101520
Reference: AVB 101520

To appear in: Aggression and Violent Behavior

Received date: 16 July 2020

Revised date: 12 October 2020
Accepted date: 23 October 2020

Please cite this article as: H.D. Butler, J.W. Caudill, J.M. Craig, et al., 99 Percenters: An
examination of the misconduct careers of the Most violent and disruptive incarcerated
delinquents, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.avb.2020.101520

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

99 Percenters: An Examination of the Misconduct Careers of the Most Violent and Disruptive

Incarcerated Delinquents

H. Daniel Butler

Iowa State University

Jonathan W. Caudill

University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

of
ro
Jessica M. Craig

University of North Texas

-p
re
Matt DeLisi
lP

Iowa State University

na

Chad R. Trulson

University of North Texas

ur

Abstract
Jo

The function of correctional institutions is to maintain institutional security and safety, and

institutional misconduct undermines that security. Few studies have examined the individuals

who pose the greatest threat to institutional security and are responsible for the greatest number

of misconduct incidents (i.e., the 99th percentile of misconducts). This study examines youthful

offenders incarcerated in Texas state juvenile facilities who engage in the most frequent and

most violent misconduct incidents through a series of logistic regression and ROC-AUC models.

The findings indicate that younger age, African-American status, gang activity during
 Journal Pre-proof

confinement, being a danger to self, and involvement in multiple forms of treatment evince a

higher risk of engaging in the 99th percentile of total and violent misconduct regardless of model

specification. Other factors such as commitment offense, adverse childhood experiences, and sex

have differential effects depending on whether the 90th or 99th percentile thresholds are

considered. Youth in the 90th percentile account for 49% of total misconduct and 50% of violent

misconduct. Youth in the 99th percentile account for 11% of total misconduct and 51% of violent

misconduct. We discuss implications for policy and practice and the importance of

of
understanding antisocial development of youthful offenders and their institutional

ro
maladjustment.

-p
Keywords: prison violence, institutional misconduct, prison, youth, criminal career, career
re
criminal

Introduction
lP

In February 2020, Jonathan Watson, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence in the
na

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, contacted correctional staff and

indicated that he was experiencing acute homicidal ideation toward other inmates in his
ur

dormitory, and in particular, inmates that were convicted sexual offenders. After experiencing
Jo

distress over the homicidal impulses, Watson requested a transfer to a more restrictive

classification setting. His request was denied in part because correctional counselors doubted the

authenticity of Watson’s violent intentions. The next day, Watson fatally bludgeoned two

inmates because he was outraged about their conviction offense: aggravated sexual assault of a

child. After killing the other prisoners, Watson promptly confessed to correctional officers and

has since provided a written confession. The case awaits formal adjudication and there is no

disposition at this time (Associated Press, 2020).

 Journal Pre-proof

Although this seems a sensationalistic case, homicide and other forms of serious misconduct are

relatively prevalent in correctional facilities. Based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

Mortality in Correctional Institutions report (Carson & Cowhig, 2020), nearly 1,200 inmate

murders and more than 3,500 inmate suicides occurred in state and federal institutions since

2001. Moreover, these data do not include the thousands of incidents of other serious misconduct

including rioting, assaults, sexual assaults, arson, threats toward correctional officers and

treatment staff, and contraband violations.1

of
Pathological Adjustment to Prison

ro
For decades, penologists studied inmates who had difficulty adjusting to prison life and who

-p
engaged in diverse forms of violent and antisocial conduct that threatened the security of prison
re
institutions (e.g., Adams, 1977; Coe, 1961; Petersilia, Honig, & Hubay, 1980; Poole & Regoli,

1979; Toch, Adams, & Greene, 1987; Wolfgang, 1961; Wood et al., 1966). Although researchers
lP

employed a variety of analytical techniques and data sources, two consistent themes emerged
na

from their research. First, there was a general association between lack of adjustment in society,

as evidenced primarily by criminal history, and subsequent lack of adjustment and involvement
ur

in misconduct in custody. In sum, the most problematic free citizens tended to be the most
Jo

problematic prisoners—this later became known as the importation model of inmate behavior

(Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Second, there was recurrent evidence of a subset of inmates who were

extremely difficult to manage and posed significant threats to other inmates and staff (Marquart

& Crouch, 1984; Wood et al., 1966; Zink, 1957). For instance, in a seminal investigation, Fox

1
In terms of correctional policy, nearly all state departments of correction and the federal Bureau of Prisons built
prisons (e.g., Alcatraz, USP Marion, USP Florence ADMAX) designed specifically to house the most challenging
inmates. Although there is variation across jurisdictions (see, Butler, Griffin, & Johnson, 2013; Butler, Johnson, &
Griffin, 2014), the most consistent criteria for placement in administrative segregation in super-maximum prison
facilities include inmates who have murdered staff, murdered other inmates, sexually assaulted staff, sexually
assaulted other inmates, are gang leaders, have extensive self-injurious behavioral history, and who otherwise have
extensive misconduct careers (Butler et al., 2013; Butler et al., 2014; Lanes, 2011; Lovell, 2008).
 Journal Pre-proof

(1958) observed that institutional misconduct is the most pressing problem in correctional

settings and there is great variation in adjustment to prison life as well as willingness to abide by

the rules of the facility. According to Fox (1958, p. 326):

the individual offender who builds up a series of misconduct reports within the

prison is a seriously disturbed individual with complex mental dynamics that

seem to combine elements of emotional immaturity, some types of behavior

observed in the psychopath, and seems to develop the repetitive compulsion in

of
much the same manner in which a chronic neurosis seems to develop.

ro
That quotation attests to the role of self-regulation, psychopathy, and general psychopathology as

-p
important variables to understand misconduct among the most severe prisoners.
re
In the ensuing decades, others have also examined the most difficult-to-manage inmates. For

example, Myers and Levy (1978) compared 50 intractably noncompliant prisoners to 50

lP

prisoners with good adjustment using data from Ohio inmates. They found several factors that
na

were associated with chronically disruptive conduct including more extensive criminal careers

(e.g., early onset of conduct problems, multiple juvenile police contacts, prior confinement and
ur

adjustment to confinement), African American race, depression symptoms, and evidence of

Jo

psychopathy (e.g., use of aliases). Based on data from female prisoners, Thomson, Towl, and

Centifanti (2016) reported that women convicted of serious violent crimes, such as murder and

who had pronounced psychopathic features, particularly callousness and impulsivity, were most

likely to constitute threats to the correctional population with their recurrent misconduct and

aggressive behaviors towards staff and other inmates.

More contemporary research employed latent class analyses to identify subgroups of inmates by

misconduct risk (e.g., Cihan, Davidson, & Sorensen, 2017; Cihan & Sorensen, 2019; Morris et
 Journal Pre-proof

al., 2012), and although disparate data sources have been used, there is once again recurrent

evidence of subgroups of inmates who pose significant problems for correctional officials. To

illustrate, Reidy, Cihan, and Sorensen (2017) studied 915 female Arizona prisoners and found

two subgroups of difficult inmates. The first constituted 8% of the sample and exhibited early-

onset misconduct careers with the highest levels of serious infractions that quickly declined

throughout their incarceration. A smaller group constituted 6.2% of the sample and had the

opposite trajectory: they had delayed-onset of serious misconduct that was consistent with

of
escalation in behavior problems. Several factors were associated with these severe subgroups

ro
including younger age at commitment, prior incarcerations, more mental health problems, greater

-p
violence risk, and more restrictive custody level. In their study of more than 8,000 inmates
re
selected from a northwestern state prison system, Cihan, Sorensen, and Chism (2017) reported

that 8.3% of inmates were “escalators” that started their confinement with compliant conduct that
lP

gradually built to more serious and frequent misconduct violations. Higher rate of prior arrests,
na

having a sexual assault commitment offense, and racial/ethnic minority status were predictive of

this escalating subgroup.

ur

Despite a growing literature on the institutional misconduct behavior of adult offenders, less is
Jo

known about intractable conduct among institutionalized delinquent offenders. This gap is

surprising since younger age is one of the most consistent predictors of maladjustment to prison

(Kuanliang, Sorensen, & Cunningham, 2008; Valentine, Mears, & Bales, 2015). Similar to

research using adult samples, prior research indicates that among juveniles there is also evidence

of a subset of severely maladaptive and violent wards; however, their risk profile is less clear.

Drawing on data from 2,520 serious and violent state institutionalized delinquents, Trulson,

DeLisi, Caudill, Belshaw, and Marquart (2010) found that a small cadre of delinquent wards
 Journal Pre-proof

produced the majority of violent incidents and misconduct. Specifically, 9.2% of wards

accounted for 21 or more major violations whereas nearly 60% of wards accumulated between

zero and four major violations. These findings suggest that institutional misconduct was highly

skewed and that fewer than one in ten inmates accounted for the bulk of violations among

incarcerated state delinquents. Moreover, Trulson and colleagues found that delinquent history

variables were consistently predictive of major violations (also see, DeLisi et al., 2011). Drawing

on data from 390 juveniles selected from the Oregon Youth Authority, Reidy, Sorensen, and

of
Cihan (2018) found that 20% of juvenile wards were very problematic while in custody and had

ro
early and sustained infractions. Conviction for violent offenses including murder, robbery, and

-p
assault, earlier age of commitment, and Hispanic ethnicity were predictive of this problematic
re
subgroup.

Current Focus
lP

Although penological history is replete with examples of violent and disruptive inmates, a basic
na

criminological profile of the most challenging adult inmates lacks consensus. We know even less

with respect to the institutional misconduct careers of the most prolific state institutionalized
ur

delinquents. The current study sought to fill this void by examining the total and violent
Jo

institutional misconduct careers of a large cohort of serious state-level institutionalized

delinquents. In particular, this study focuses on the misconduct careers of the 99th percentile of

offenders in our sample (with sensitivity models using the 90th percentile).

This focus on the most chronic and violent misconduct perpetrators within a group of

already serious delinquent offenders is important on a number of levels. At the practical level,

involvement in misconduct, particularly chronic and/or serious misconduct involvement, is often

associated with removal or severe restriction from beneficial institutional programming and
 Journal Pre-proof

treatment—treatment and programming that are perhaps especially important with respect to the

deep-end offenders under study. Understanding the factors related to misconduct perpetration is

important then in efforts to help redirect offenders to more prosocial ways of managing the

institutional regime, to glean as much as they can from the institutional experience, and

ultimately, to help promote positive adjustment to free society once released. Indeed, previous

research has found that institutional misconduct influences post-release recidivism (Cochran &

Mears, 2017; Cochran, Mears, Bales, & Stewart, 2017; Trulson et al., 2010; Trulson, DeLisi, &

of
Marquart, 2011), and additional knowledge on the factors relevant in explaining this behavior

ro
may shed additional light on ways to improve the release trajectories of such serious juvenile

offenders.
-p
re
Method

Sample and data

lP

The sample for the present research includes 3,382 delinquents committed to state juvenile
na

correctional facilities in Texas between 1987 and 2011. The 3,382 members of this study cohort

represent all offenders sentenced to state juvenile incarceration from 1987-2011 in Texas.2
ur

Unlike regular juvenile court processing and sanctioning in the state, Texas’ blended sentencing
Jo

statute focused on youthful offenders between the ages of 10-16 who have committed one or

more statutorily defined serious and/or violent offenses.3 Upon adjudication under a blended

2
In Texas, there are two general types of offenders who are institutionalized. The first type, indeterminate
commitments, are youth who are sentenced to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) for a minimum of 9 months and
are broadly more garden variety but still problematic offenders. The second group, and the focus of this research, are
those sentenced to TYC under Texas’s blended sentencing law. This group is referred to as determinate
commitments and may receive maximum sentences ranging from 10-40 years, depending on their offense. Because
of these extended sentence lengths, determinate commitments can be transferred on to the adult system by the time
they reach the maximum age of juvenile correctional jurisdiction. This is not allowed for indeterminate
commitments.
3
During the time frames of this study (1987-2011), the following offenses were eligible for prosecution under
Texas’s blended sentencing statute: murder, attempted murder, capital murder, attempted capital murder, voluntary
manslaughter, intoxication manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, aggravated kidnapping, attempted
 Journal Pre-proof

sentencing prosecution, Texas law allows youthful offenders to receive sentences that can extend

well into adulthood, and which could later result in further incarceration in adult prisons or other

sanctioning in the criminal justice system (e.g., adult probation). Despite the potential for later

adult sanctioning originating from a juvenile-based blended sentence, this research focuses on

the behavioral outcomes of youth during the entire portion of their state juvenile incarceration. In

sum, we examine the misconduct careers of this cohort of offenders during their incarceration in

Texas state juvenile correctional facilities.

of
The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) (renamed the Texas Juvenile Justice Department) provided

ro
de-identified data on youthful offenders across a variety of pre-incarceration domains including

-p
but not limited to information on youth demographics, delinquent histories, family-based
re
measures, adverse childhood experiences, and general measures indicative of

antisocial/psychopathic characteristics and other risks. Broadly, these measures derived from a
lP

combination of official records, clinical observations of TYC counselors and correctional staff,
na

and on-site diagnostic examinations that occur at intake to state juvenile correctional facilities.

TYC also provided counts of all forms of officially recorded misconduct during the ward’s state
ur

incarceration period. Below we discuss these variables in more detail.

Jo

Measures

Dependent variables. Total misconduct (M = 38.34, SD = 63.15, range = 0-1,254) included

violations for the following infractions: attempting, aiding, or abetting a category I (serious) rule

violation, attempting, aiding, or abetting a category II (less serious) rule violation, absconding,

aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, attempted
sexual assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, felony injury to a child or
elderly or disabled person, felony deadly conduct, aggravated or first degree controlled substance felony, criminal
solicitation/conspiracy of a capital or first degree felony, second degree felony indecency with a child, criminal
solicitation of a minor, first degree felony arson, habitual felony conduct.
 Journal Pre-proof

attempted escape, attempted suicide, possession of contraband, destruction of property,

disruption of program, dress code violation, refusing a drug screen, escape, extortion, fleeing

apprehension, throwing bodily fluids, gambling, hostage taking, indecent exposure, lending,

lying, missed scheduled activity, participation in a riot, inappropriate sexual contact, stealing

over $50, stealing under $50, tampering with security equipment, tattooing, threaten to harm self,

vandalism, violate any law, and violation of security. Total misconduct was dichotomized at the

99th percentile (No = 0, Yes = 1) to capture the most prolific misconduct perpetrators. The top

of
1% accounted for 11% of all misconduct.

ro
Violent misconduct (M = 3.89, SD = 6.49, range = 0-82) included: assaults on staff, assaults on

-p
staff with bodily injury, assault on staff/offender contact, assault by threat of imminent bodily
re
injury, assault of a student, assault of a student with bodily injury, assault of a student/offender

contact, a fight with bodily injury, a fight with no injury, and threatening another with weapon.
lP

Violent misconduct was dichotomized at the 99th percentile (No = 0, Yes, = 1) to capture the
na

most prolific violence perpetrators. The top 1% accounted for 51% of all violent misconduct.

Gang activity. Two measures of gang activity were included based on the significant linkages
ur

between both gang activity and prison violence (Cihan, Reidy, Sorensen, & Chism, 2020;
Jo

Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007; Fahmy, Jackson, Pyrooz, & Decker, 2020; Griffin & Hepburn,

2006; Redi, 2017) and institutional misconduct (DeLisi, Spruill, Peters, Caudill, & Trulson,

2013; Drury & DeLisi, 2011; Trulson, 2007). These were a dichotomous term indicating whether

the youth’s commitment offense was gang-related and a ratio-level indicator of gang activity

during confinement in the Texas Youth Commission.

Delinquent career. Copious research indicates that youth with more extensive, severe, and earlier

emerging antisocial conduct and juvenile justice system involvement engage in more frequent
 Journal Pre-proof

and severe misconduct (Blackburn & Trulson, 2010; Craig & Trulson, 2019; Rembert,

Henderson, Threadcraft-Walker, & Simmons-Horton, 2018; Trulson et al., 2010). Total

adjudications is a summary measure of adjudications prior to current state commitment offense.

Prior out of home placements is a summary measure of times that the youth was removed from

the home prior to TYC commitment. Total court referrals is a summary measure of referrals to

the juvenile court. Truancy history is a dichotomous term indicating whether the youth had a

history of being truant from school.

of
Adverse childhood experiences. Emerging research (Craig & Trulson, 2019; DeLisi et al., 2010;

ro
Klatt & Kliem, 2019; Rembert, Threadcraft-Walker, Henderson, & Jackson, 2018) indicates that

-p
youth with greater trauma histories characterized by assorted incidents of abuse and neglect
re
experience more misconduct during confinement. Dichotomous terms indicated whether the

youth experienced emotional abuse, abandonment, medical neglect, supervision neglect, sexual
lP

abuse, physical abuse, and physical neglect were included.

na

Psychopathology and risk. Externalizing psychopathology (Abbiati, Palix, Gasser, & Moulin,

2019; Choi & Dulisse, 2020; Gardner et al., 2015; Skopp, Edens, & Ruiz, 2007; Thomson et al.,
ur

2019), suicidal thoughts and behaviors (DeLisi et al., 2010), and substance use problems
Jo

(Houser, Belenko, & Brennan, 2012; Jiang, 2005) have been shown to be significantly associated

with institutional misconduct and violence. Five dichotomous measures indicating whether the

youth was a danger to self, danger to others, violent toward their family, suicidal, and had a

substance abuse problem are included in the data. In addition, an ordinal variable of whether the

youth was reared in a chaotic home (no = 0, 1 = somewhat, 2 = very much) was also included.

Sociodemographics. Several sociodemographic factors including age (MacKenzie, 1987; Steiner,

Butler, & Ellison, 2014; Valentine et al., 2015), sex (Gover, Pérez, & Jennings, 2008; Steiner et
 Journal Pre-proof

al., 2014; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2014), race (Berg & DeLisi, 2006; Bonner, Rodrigurez, &

Sorensen, 2017; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009), and educational attainment (Engstrom & Scott,

2020; Morris et al., 2012) are associated with institutional misconduct and violence.

Dichotomous terms for male, white, black, and continuous terms for age at TYC commitment

and highest grade completed were included.

Conviction offense. There is mixed evidence for the effects of conviction offense on misconduct

and prison violence (Butler, 2019; Drury & DeLisi, 2011; Steiner et al., 2014), but it is an

of
important consideration. Dichotomous terms for aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual assault,

ro
and murder were included.

-p
Additional covariates that have previously been linked to institutional misconduct and violence
re
include sentence length, time served (years served in custody of the Texas Youth Commission),

and a composite measure of involvement in multiple forms of correctional treatment, such as

lP

chemical dependency treatment, sex offender treatment, mental health treatment, serious and
na

violent offender treatment (Kuo & Zhao, 2010; Steiner et al., 2014; Trulson et al., 2016).

Descriptive statistics for all study variables appear in Table 1.

ur

***Table 1 about here***

Jo

Analytical strategy

To develop a profile of the most disruptive and violent wards, we employed an iterative

analytical strategy. First, binary logistic regression models with odds ratios specified were

executed for total misconduct and violent misconduct. Using estat classification and lroc

commands in Stata 12.1, we produced estimates of the classification accuracy of the model in

terms of cases correctly identified and ROC-AUC models (shown in the figures). Second, we

executed another binary logistic regression model for each dependent variable using only the
 Journal Pre-proof

significant covariates from the full model and again assessed the classification accuracy of the

model. This allowed us to assess whether the reduced model provided a more parsimonious

model of disruptive/violent inmates that still maintained good classification accuracy. Third, we

performed sensitivity analyses using the 90th percentile threshold for total and violent

misconduct to examine the robustness of the findings.

Findings

Logistic Regression Model for 99th Percentile for Total Misconduct (Full Model)

of
Table 2 contains output from the logistic regression model for the 99th percentile for total

ro
misconduct.4 Total adjudications (OR = 1.31, SE = .15, z = 2.46) was significantly associated

-p
with being in the 99th percentile indicating that each additional adjudication in the ward’s
re
delinquent career was associated with 31% increased odds of being chronically noncompliant in

prison. Three demographic factors were significant. African Americans had 812% increased
lP

odds of 99th percentile misconduct (OR = 9.12, SE = 7.57, z = 2.67). Females had 79%
na

increased odds of 99th percentile misconduct (OR = .21, SE = .17, z = -1.97) and age was

inversely associated. With each year increase in age came a reduction in the odds of being in the
ur

99th percentile misconduct group by 45% (OR = .55, SE = .12, z = -2.66). Gang activity during
Jo

confinement was conducive to high levels of total misconduct with each incident conferring

135% increased odds (OR = 2.35, SE = .29, z = 6.99) of 99th percentile status. Clients who

participated in multiple forms of treatment (OR = 2.03, SE = .45, z = 3.18), who were dangers to

self (OR = 3.13, SE = 1.53, z = 2.33), or whose instant offense was aggravated sexual assault

(OR = 6.88, SE = 4.79, z = 2.78) were positively associated with 99th percentile total

misconduct. Although there were several covariates with null associations, the model correctly

4
Instant (current) offense for murder predicted failure perfectly and dropped from the model that resulted in 344 lost
observations. As a result, that covariate is not included in the model.
 Journal Pre-proof

classified 99.02% of cases and had excellent classification accuracy (AUC = .97) as shown in the

ROC curve (Figure 2).

***Table 2 about here*** and ***Figure 1 about here***

To assess the sensitivity of the model and examine if a reduced set of covariates produced

changes in classification accuracy, another logistic regression model was executed that included

only the eight significant covariates. As shown in Table 3, all covariates remained significant and

in most cases the effect sizes were substantively similar. However, the inverse age effect

of
intensified, the effect size for African Americans reduced substantially (∆OR from 9.12 to 2.58),

ro
and the effect size for instant offense aggravated sexual assault increased substantially (∆OR

-p
from 6.88 to 8.27). Moreover, the classification accuracy of the model declined only slightly to
re
98.98% cases correctly classified and an AUC = .96 (see Figure 2). In short, the reduced model

was much more efficient than the full model but had nearly the same accuracy.
lP

***Table 3 about here*** and ***Figure 2 about here***

na

Logistic Regression Model for 99th Percentile for Violent Misconduct

***Table 4 about here***

ur

Table 4 presents output for the logistic regression model of the 99th percentile for violent
Jo

misconduct. Two adverse childhood experiences were significant albeit in different directions.

Emotional abuse was negatively (OR = .63, SE = .14, z = -2.14) and abandonment positively

(OR = 1.55, SE = .32, z = 2.12) associated with violent misconduct at the 99th percentile. Males

had 138% higher odds (OR = 2.38, SE = .83, z = 2.50), African Americans had 70% higher odds

(OR = 1.70, SE = .25, z = 3.60), and age had a strong inverse association (OR = .52, SE = .04, z

= -9.43) with 99th percentile violent misconduct. Each incident of gang activity during

confinement (OR = 2.24, SE = .16, z = 10.96) conferred 114% higher odds of frequent violent
 Journal Pre-proof

misconduct. Wards who participated in multiple forms of treatment (OR = 1.47, SE = .10, z =

5.54) or who were dangers to self (OR = 1.72, SE = .26, z = 3.53) were positively associated

with 99th percentile violent misconduct. Those offenders whose commitment offense was murder

were less likely (OR = .49, SE = .15, z = -2.35) to be classified in the 99th percentile violent

misconduct group. Two additional covariates trended toward significance at p<.06 with inverse

associations between years served in TYC custody and sentence length and more frequent

violence. The model correctly classified 90.27% of cases and had strong classification accuracy

of
(AUC = .82) as shown in the ROC curve (Figure 3).

ro
***Figure 3 about here***

-p
To assess the sensitivity of the model, we specified another logistic regression model with only
re
the nine significant covariates. As shown in Table 5, all covariates remained significant with the

exception of emotional abuse that fell from significance. The effect sizes for all variables were
lP

substantively similar with the exception of the commitment offense of murder, which decreased
na

from 0.49 to 0.31 odds. The classification accuracy of the model declined only slightly to

90.15% of cases correctly classified and an AUC = .80 (Figure 3). In short, the reduced model
ur

was much more efficient than the full model but had nearly the same accuracy.
Jo

***Table 5 about here*** and ***Figure 4 about here***

Sensitivity analyses using the 90th percentile threshold for total and violent misconduct

Logistic regression models for total and violent misconduct at the 90th percentile provided a

sensitivity check for the models set at the 99th percentile. Several of the significant effects

remained; however, there were also some differences. African Americans, multiple forms of

treatment, gang activity during confinement, danger to self, and age remained significant at the

90th percentile for total misconduct. Physical abuse (OR = 1.52, SE = .32, z = 2.00), prior
 Journal Pre-proof

placements (OR = 1.20, SE = .07, z = 3.03), and sentence length (OR = .99, SE = .004, z = -3.07)

were significant at the new threshold and instant offense for aggravated sexual assault, total

adjudications, and female dropped from significance. Classification accuracy for the model at the

90th percentile was lower with 91.72% of cases correctly classified and AUC = .86. In the

logistic regression model for violent misconduct at the 90th percentile, the results were mostly the

same. Emotional abuse, abandonment, male, age, African American, danger to self, sentence

length, gang activity during confinement, and multiple forms of treatment were significant at

of
both specifications. The only new effect was that instant offense for murder fell from

ro
significance. Overall, the model had similar classification accuracy with 91.23% of cases

correctly classified and AUC = .84.

-p
re
Discussion

The research goal was to assess the relevant factors in identifying the most frequent and violent
lP

perpetrators of institutional misconduct in a juvenile correctional environment—those offending

na

at levels in the 99th percentile within a cohort of serious state institutionalized delinquents. In

estimating full and then more parsimonious logistic regression models, the analyses were able to
ur

ferret out some consistent factors across both models in terms of the most frequent and violent
Jo

misconduct perpetrators in this cohort of serious state delinquents. The findings indicate that

younger age, African-American status, gang activity during confinement, being a danger to self,

and involvement in multiple forms of treatment evince a higher risk of engaging in the 99th and

90th percentiles of total and violent misconduct regardless of model specification.

First, consistent with criminal career and developmental psychopathology research (e.g.,

Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001; Vaughn et al., 2011; Vaughn et al., 2014; Wolfgang,

Figlio, & Sellin, 1972), there is clear evidence that the most severe offenders account for a
 Journal Pre-proof

disproportionate share of misconduct and violence in institutional settings. Specifically, youth in

the 90th percentile account for 49% of total misconduct and 50% of violent misconduct and youth

in the 99th percentile account for 11% of total misconduct and 51% of violent misconduct.

Moreover, the top 1% has its most detrimental impact in terms of violence relative to its

involvement in generalized misconduct. The asymmetry in institutional misconduct is consistent

with prior studies of both adult prisoners (DeLisi, 2003) and juveniles (Trulson et al., 2010).

Second, although there was consistency in the models regarding the stability of effects at

of
both the 90th and 99th percentiles for several variables, that was not the case for others especially

ro
sex. Females were more likely to be in the 99th percentile for total misconduct, but no effect was

-p
found at the 90th percentile whereas males were more likely to be violent in all models. What

explains these discrepant findings? In the 99th percentile specification, two females had very high
re
misconduct—407 and 642 violations respectively, but aside from these, all of the remaining most
lP

chronic misconduct violators were males. Using the 90th percentile specification removed the
na

influence of these outliers. However, there are also substantive reasons to expect sex differences

in extreme misconduct. There is ample evidence that female correctional clients have worse and
ur

more extensive victimization histories and greater psychopathology (DeLisi et al., 2010; Kuo &
Jo

Zhao, 2019; Warren & Burnette, 2012; Warren et al., 2002; Warren, Hurt, Loper, & Chauhan,

2004; Warren et al., 2004)—conditions that complicate adjustment to the rigors of institutional

life. Moreover, trauma history and some of its downstream sequelae including personality

disorders contribute to an interpersonal style that is susceptible to conflict and other aversive

exchange in correctional environments (Loper, Mahmoodzadegan, & Warren, 2008; Warren &

Burnette, 2012). This is likely particularly true in these data since the wards are juvenile

delinquents and adverse childhood experiences are more proximate in time relative to adult
 Journal Pre-proof

female prisoners. The current findings are consonant with prior research. For example, in a

comparative study of female and male prisoners, McCorkle (1995) reported evidence of a

“disturbed and disruptive” prisoner adaption among women but not men in part due to

psychopathology differences between the genders.

Third, youth who were dangerous to self were significantly more likely to be in the 99th (and

90th) percentiles for both total misconduct and violence. This comports with Slade’s (2018;

Slade, Forrester, & Baguley, 2020) concept of dual harm conduct characterized as prisoners who

of
engage in both externalized and internalized violence, that is, they hurt themselves and other

ro
inmates. Related, youth who received multiple forms of treatment were significant for both total

-p
and violent misconduct across model specifications, which speaks to the fact that youth with
re
multiple comorbidities (e.g., substance abuse issues and mental health issues) are those who tend

to display lesser ability to adapt to the institutional routine (Houser, Belenko, & Brennan, 2012;
lP

Kuo & Zhao, 2019).

na

Fourth, consistent with both the adult and juvenile misconduct literature (Steiner et al., 2014;

Valentine et al., 2015), we found consistent effects for the impact of young age on misconduct
ur

perpetration irrespective of the percentile. From a practical standpoint, attention to the youngest
Jo

of all wards may bring dividends with respect to reducing frequent misconduct perpetration.

While the data did not allow us to uncover more specific dynamics for misconduct perpetration

by younger wards—whether it is a potential response to victimization by older and more

sophisticated wards or if the younger wards simply have a more difficult time adapting to the

institutional routine, or both—this seems a fruitful line of policy relevant research. This finding

is also relevant with regard to gang activity and its relation to misconduct. Several dynamics

might explain why gang members are more involved in misconduct, such as gang disputes,
 Journal Pre-proof

greater attention by correctional officers, and peer pressure from older and more sophisticated

gang members. Although we did not have information with respect to the prevalence of these and

other potential dynamics, this type of information would shed additional light on their

misconduct careers behind bars. Moreover, the consistent effects of African-American race on

misconduct are worthy of further attention. Steiner and Wooldredge (2009) observed that

individuals from disadvantaged communities may have problems adjusting to the rigid structure

of prison life, and that attitudes toward violence in the community also influence attitudes toward

of
violence in prisons (also see, Choi & Dulisse, 2020). A research opportunity is to examine

ro
whether high levels of total and violent misconduct are the result of greater rule enforcement,

-p
greater perpetration, or some explanation in between. Such a research implication might also pay
re
specific attention to the types of misconduct perpetrated, especially violent misconduct, which

are less discretionary instances than forms of total misconduct measured.

lP

We recognize limitations of the current study. First, this research focused on an extremely
na

serious and mostly violent cohort of institutionalized juvenile offenders. Because Texas’ blended

sentencing law is limited to a defined set of serious and/or violent offenders, the blended
ur

sentenced offender sample materializes from a form of selection bias at the legal and prosecution
Jo

stage in that these offenders are not garden-variety state delinquent commitments. This impacts

the generalizability of our study albeit that this group does not generalize to other delinquents is

less of a concern as these are the types of offenders of most consequence for juvenile

correctional authorities. Second, while we utilized a number of relevant variables in accounting

for involvement in institutional misconduct, additional variables and specificity among variables

would have perhaps improved our ability to explain why some factors were important to

membership in the 99th and 90th percentiles. For example, regarding significant effects for age, it
 Journal Pre-proof

would have been interesting to see if misconduct relates to a potential victimization situation,

shortsightedness, impulsivity, or lack of stamina to deal with institutional pressures. In terms of

gang activity during confinement, it would have been useful to understand if misconduct

perpetration, for example, was a consequence of pressures by some gang members on others

(e.g., pressure from older gang members on young gang members), or geographical pressure

(e.g., youth from Houston competing with youth from Dallas) to perpetrate misconduct. These

are realities in juvenile institutional environments that warrant empirical attention. Third, as with

of
any official data source, especially behavioral counts of individuals under confinement, we were

ro
not able to address factors such as the detection of misconduct incidents or differences in

-p
correctional officer reporting at different institutions, among other relevant considerations in
re
accounting for misconduct (Hewitt, Poole & Regoli, 1984). This limitation is less central to

violent misconduct perpetration than total misconduct perpetration as more serious incidents
lP

(e.g., assault on a ward or an officer) are more likely to be discovered and reported, but this is a
na

limitation that if able to be accounted for would have improved this study.

Conclusion
ur

Absent these and other potential limitations to this research, we believe this research fills an
Jo

important gap with respect to involvement in institutional misconduct among serious and/or

violent delinquent offenders. By focusing on the extremes of misconduct perpetrators, our goal

was to dig deeper into the misconduct careers of some of the most problematic institutionalized

delinquents so to uncover the factors related to these more extreme levels of misconduct

perpetration “within” a group of already serious and often violent offenders. The overarching

finding of this study is that delinquent careers do not stop at the gates of juvenile correctional

facilities. In fact, delinquent careers may accelerate for certain offenders.

 Journal Pre-proof

References

Abbiati, M., Palix, J., Gasser, J., & Moulin, V. (2019). Predicting physically violent misconduct

in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments. Behavioral Sciences & the

Law, 37(1), 61-77.

Adams, T. C. (1977). Characteristics of state prisoners who demonstrate severe adjustment

problems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 1100-1103.

Associated Press. (2020). California inmate writes letter to newspaper, says he killed 2 molesters

of
in prison. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from

ro
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/02/22/inmate-jonathan-watson-says-he-

killed-2-molesters-california-prison/4842042002/
-p
re
Berg, M. T., & DeLisi, M. (2006). The correctional melting pot: Race, ethnicity, citizenship, and

prison violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(6), 631-642.

lP

Blackburn, A. G., & Trulson, C. R. (2010). Sugar and spice and everything nice? Exploring
na

institutional misconduct among serious and violent female delinquents. Journal of Criminal

Justice, 38(6), 1132-1140.

ur

Bonner, H. S., Rodriguez, F. A., & Sorensen, J. R. (2017). Race, ethnicity, and prison
Jo

disciplinary misconduct. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 15(1), 36-51.

Butler, H. D. (2019). An examination of inmate adjustment stratified by time served in prison.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 64, 101628.

Butler, H. D., Griffin III, O. H., & Johnson, W. W. (2013). What makes you the “worst of the

worst?” An examination of state policies defining supermaximum confinement. Criminal Justice

Policy Review, 24(6), 676-694.

Butler, H. D., Johnson, W. W., & Griffin III, O. H. (2014). The treatment of the mentally ill in
 Journal Pre-proof

supermax facilities: An evaluation of state supermax policies. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

41(11), 1338-1353.

Carson, E. A., & Cowhig, M. P. (2020). Mortality in state and federal prisons, 2001-2016—

Statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Choi, J., & Dulisse, B. (2020). The importation of violent “codes” of South Korean inmates. The

Prison Journal, 100(3), 287-311.

of
Cihan, A., Davidson, M., & Sorensen, J. (2017). Analyzing the heterogeneous nature of inmate

ro
behavior: Trajectories of prison misconduct. The Prison Journal, 97(4), 431-450.

-p
Cihan, A., Reidy, T. J., Sorensen, J., & Chism, K. A. (2020). Assessing the developmental
re
patterns of visitation on prison misconduct: do visitation patterns matter? Criminal Justice

Studies, 33(2), 153-169.

lP

Cihan, A., & Sorensen, J. R. (2019). Examining developmental patterns of prison misconduct:
na

An integrated model approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 63(14), 2406-2421.

ur

Cihan, A., Sorensen, J., & Chism, K. A. (2017). Analyzing the offending activity of inmates:
Jo

Trajectories of offense seriousness, escalation, and de-escalation. Journal of Criminal Justice,

50, 12-18.

Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2017). The path of least desistance: Inmate compliance and

recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 34(3), 431-458.

Cochran, J. C., Mears, J. P., Bales, W. D., & Stewart, E. A. (2014). Does inmate behavior affect

post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and

adults. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1044-1073.

 Journal Pre-proof

Coe, R. M. (1961). Characteristics of well-adjusted and poorly adjusted inmates. Journal of

Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 52, 178-184.

Craig, J. M., & Trulson, C. R. (2019). Continuity of the delinquent career behind bars: Predictors

of violent misconduct among female delinquents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49, 101301.

Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2007). Predictive factors for violent misconduct in close

custody. The Prison Journal, 87(2), 241-253.

DeLisi, M. (2003). Criminal careers behind bars. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(5), 653-

of
669.

ro
DeLisi, M., Berg, M. T., & Hochstetler, A. (2004). Gang members, career criminals and prison

-p
violence: Further specification of the importation model of inmate behavior. Criminal Justice
re
Studies, 17(4), 369-383.

DeLisi, M., Drury, A. J., Kosloski, A. E., Caudill, J. W., Conis, P. J., Anderson, C. A., ... &
lP

Beaver, K. M. (2010). The cycle of violence behind bars: Traumatization and institutional
na

misconduct among juvenile delinquents in confinement. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,

8(2), 107-121.
ur

DeLisi, M., Spruill, J. O., Peters, D. J., Caudill, J. W., & Trulson, C. R. (2013). “Half in, half
Jo

out:” Gang families, gang affiliation, and gang misconduct. American Journal of Criminal

Justice, 38(4), 602-615.

DeLisi, M., Trulson, C. R., Marquart, J. W., Drury, A. J., & Kosloski, A. E. (2011). Inside the

prison black box: Toward a life course importation model of inmate behavior. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(8), 1186- 1207.

DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., Hochstetler, A., Kosloski, A. E., &

Drury, A. J. (2008). Juvenile sex offenders and institutional misconduct: The role of thought
 Journal Pre-proof

psychopathology. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18(5), 292-305.

Drury, A. J., & DeLisi, M. (2011). Gangkill: An exploratory empirical assessment of gang

membership, homicide offending, and prison misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 130-146.

Engstrom, R. S., & Scott, D. (2020). Juvenile institutional misconduct: Examining the role of

educational attainment and academic achievement. Crime & Delinquency, doi:

10.1177/0011128719901113.

Fahmy, C., Jackson, D. B., Pyrooz, D. C., & Decker, S. H. (2020). Head injury in prison: Gang

of
membership and the role of prison violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 101658.

ro
Fox, V. (1958). Analysis of prison disciplinary problems. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology

& Police Science, 49(4), 321-326.

-p
re
Gardner, B. O., Boccaccini, M. T., Bitting, B. S., & Edens, J. F. (2015). Personality Assessment

Inventory scores as predictors of misconduct, recidivism, and violence: A meta-analytic review.

lP

Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 534-544.

na

Gover, A. R., Pérez, D. M., & Jennings, W. G. (2008). Gender differences in factors contributing

to institutional misconduct. The Prison Journal, 88(3), 378-403.

ur

Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct
Jo

among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4),

419-466.

Hewitt, J. D., Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1984). Self-reported and observed rule-breaking in

prison: A look at disciplinary response. Justice Quarterly, 1(3), 437-447.

Houser, K. A., Belenko, S., & Brennan, P. K. (2012). The effects of mental health and substance

abuse disorders on institutional misconduct among female inmates. Justice Quarterly, 29(6),

799-828.
 Journal Pre-proof

Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems,

10(2), 142-155.

Jiang, S. (2005). Impact of drug use on inmate misconduct: A multilevel analysis. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 33(2), 153-163.

Klatt, T., & Kliem, S. (2019). The influence of harsh parenting and parental warmth during

childhood on later involvement in prison misconduct. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

doi: 10.1177/0886260518820675.

of
Kuanliang, A., Sorensen, J. R., & Cunningham, M. D. (2008). Juvenile inmates in an adult prison

ro
system: Rates of disciplinary misconduct and violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9),

1186-1201.
-p
re
Kuo, S. Y., & Zhao, R. (2019). Prison misconduct among female inmates with mental disorders,

substance abuse/dependence, and co-occurring disorders in Taiwan. International Journal of

lP

Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(3), 263-276.

na

Lanes, E. C. (2011). Are the “worst of the worst” self-injurious prisoners more likely to end up

in long-term maximum-security administrative segregation? International Journal of Offender

ur

Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(7), 1034-1050.

Jo

Loper, A. B., Mahmoodzadegan, N., & Warren, J. I. (2008). Childhood maltreatment and cluster

B personality pathology in female serious offenders. Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 139-160.

Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax population. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 35(8), 985-1004.

MacKenzie, D. L. (1987). Age and adjustment to prison: Interactions with attitudes and anxiety.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(4), 427-447.

Marquart, J. W., & Crouch, B. M. (1984). Co-opting the kept: Using inmates for social control in
 Journal Pre-proof

a southern prison. Justice Quarterly, 1(4), 491-509.

McCorkle, R. C. (1995). Gender, psychopathology, and institutional behavior: A comparison of

male and female mentally ill prison inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(1), 53-61.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and

adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and

of
Psychopathology, 13(2), 355-375.

ro
Morris, R. G., Carriaga, M. L., Diamond, B., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Does

-p
prison strain lead to prison misbehavior? An application of general strain theory to inmate
re
misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 194-201.

Myers, L. B., & Levy, G. W. (1978). Description and prediction of the intractable inmate.
lP

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 15(2), 214-228.

na

Petersilia, J., Honig, P., & Hubay, C. (1980). The prison experience of career criminals. Santa

Monica, CA: RAND.

ur

Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1979). Race, institutional rule breaking, and disciplinary
Jo

response: A study of discretionary decision making in prison. Law & Society Review, 14, 931-

941.

Reid, S. E. (2017). Friendship group composition and juvenile institutional misconduct.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(2), 191-209.

Reidy, T. J., Cihan, A., & Sorensen, J. R. (2017). Women in prison: Investigating trajectories of

institutional female misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 49-56.

Reidy, T. J., Sorensen, J. R., & Cihan, A. (2018). Institutional misconduct among juvenile
 Journal Pre-proof

offenders serving a blended sentence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57(C), 99-105.

Rembert, D. A., Henderson, H., Threadcraft-Walker, W., & Simmons-Horton, S. (2018).

Predicting staff assault in juvenile correctional facilities. Corrections, 3(3), 170-185.

Rembert, D. A., Threadcraft-Walker, W., Henderson, H., & Jackson, R. (2018). Predicting youth

assault and institutional danger in juvenile correctional facilities. Journal of Criminal Justice,

58(C), 47-55.

Skopp, N. A., Edens, J. F., & Ruiz, M. A. (2007). Risk factors for institutional misconduct

of
among incarcerated women: An examination of the criterion-related validity of the Personality

ro
Assessment Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(1), 106-117.

-p
Slade, K. (2018). Dual harm: an exploration of the presence and characteristics for dual violence
re
and self-harm behaviour in prison. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 8(2), 97-111.

Slade, K., Forrester, A., & Baguley, T. (2020). Co-existing violence and self-harm: Dual harm in
lP

an early-stage male prison population. Legal and Criminological Psychology, e12169.

na

Steiner, B., Butler, H. D., & Ellison, J. M. (2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate

misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 462-470.
ur

Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2009). The relevance of inmate race/ethnicity versus population
Jo

composition for understanding prison rule violations. Punishment & Society, 11(4), 459-489.

Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2014). Sex differences in the predictors of prisoner misconduct.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 433-452.

Thomson, N. D., Towl, G. J., & Centifanti, L. (2016). The habitual female offender inside: How

psychopathic traits predict chronic prison violence. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 257-269.

Thomson, N. D., Vassileva, J., Kiehl, K. A., Reidy, D., Aboutanos, M., McDougle, R., & DeLisi,

M. (2019). Which features of psychopathy and impulsivity matter most for prison violence? New
 Journal Pre-proof

evidence among female prisoners. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 64, 26-33.

Toch, H., Adams, K., & Greene, R. (1987). Ethnicity, disruptiveness, and emotional disorder

among prison inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(1), 93-109.

Trulson, C. R. (2007). Determinants of disruption: Institutional misconduct among state-

committed delinquents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(1), 7-34.

Trulson, C. R., DeLisi, M., Caudill, J. W., Belshaw, S., & Marquart, J. W. (2010). Delinquent

careers behind bars. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), 200-219.

of
Trulson, C.R., DeLisi, M. & Marquart, J.W. (2011). Institutional misconduct, delinquent

ro
background, and re-arrest frequency among serious and violent delinquent offenders. Crime &

Delinquency, 57, 709-731.

-p
re
Trulson, C. R., Haerle, D. R., Caudill, J. W., & DeLisi, M. (2016). Lost causes: Blended

sentencing, second chances, and the Texas youth commission. Austin, TX: University of Texas
lP

Press.
na

Valentine, C. L., Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2015). Unpacking the relationship between age

and prison misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(5), 418-427.

ur

Vaughn, M. G., DeLisi, M., Gunter, T., Fu, Q., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., & Howard, M. O.
Jo

(2011). The severe 5%: A latent class analysis of the externalizing behavior spectrum in

the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 75-80.

Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., DeLisi, M., & Maynard, B. R. (2014). Violence and

externalizing behavior among youth in the United States: Is there a severe 5%? Youth Violence

and Juvenile Justice, 12(1), 3-21.

Warren, J. I., & Burnette, M. (2012). Factor invariance of Cluster B psychopathology among

male and female inmates and association with impulsive and violent behavior. The Journal of
 Journal Pre-proof

Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 23(1), 40-60.

Warren, J. I., Burnette, M., South, S. C., Chauhan, P., Bale, R., & Friend, R. (2002). Personality

disorders and violence among female prison inmates. Journal of the American Academy of

Psychiatry and the Law, 30(4), 502-509.

Warren, J. I., Hurt, S., Loper, A. B., & Chauhan, P. (2004). Exploring prison adjustment among

female inmates: Issues of measurement and prediction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(5),

624-645.

of
Wolfgang, M. E. (1961). Quantitative analysis of adjustment to the prison community. Journal of

ro
Criminal Law, Criminology, & Police Science, 51(6), 607-618.

-p
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL:
re
University of Chicago Press.

Wood Jr., B. S., Wilson, G. G., Jessor, R., & Bogan, J. B. (1966). Troublemaking behavior in a
lP

correctional institution: Relationship to inmates’ definition of their situation. American Journal

na

of Orthopsychiatry, 36(5), 795-802.

Zink, T. M. (1957). Are prison troublemakers different? The Journal of Criminal Law,
ur

Criminology, and Police Science, 47(5), 433-434.

Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean SD Range
Total Adjudications 2.37 2.30 0-22
Prior Out of Home Placements 3.69 4.81 0-45
Total Court Referrals 4.39 4.46 0-43
Highest Grade Completed 8.21 1.33 2-12
Age at TYC Commitment 15.88 1.17 10.8-18.9
Sentence Length 45.96 17.6 1-84
Years Served in Texas Youth Commission 3.06 1.30 .05-8.32
Gang Activity During Confinement .22 .74 0-9
Received Multiple Forms of Treatment 1.98 .88 0-5
Yes No
Instant Offense Aggravated Robbery 35% 65%

of
Instant Offense Aggravated Sexual Assault 21% 79%
Instant Offense Murder 10% 90%

ro
Male 94% 6%
Black 39% 61%
White 20% 80%
Gang-Related Offense
Truancy History -p 17% 83%
71% 29%
re
Emotional Abuse 19% 81%
Abandonment 11% 89%
Medical Neglect 4% 96%
lP

Supervision Neglect 23% 77%

Sexual Abuse 14% 86%
Physical Neglect 9% 91%
na

Physical Abuse 16% 84%

Youth is Danger to Self 18% 82%
Youth is Danger to Others 70% 30%
ur

Youth is Violent Toward Family 25% 75%

Youth is Suicidal 11% 89%
Youth Has Substance Abuse Problem 77% 23%
Jo

Total Misconduct 99th Percentile 1% 99%

Violent Misconduct 99th Percentile 1% 99%
No Somewhat Very Much
Youth Reared in Chaotic Home 29% 44% 27%
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 2. Logistic Regression Model for 99th Percentile for Total Misconduct (Full Model)
Variable OR SE z
Total Adjudications 1.31 .15 2.46*
Prior Out of Home Placements 1.21 .24 0.95
Total Court Referrals .80 .16 -1.11
Emotional Abuse .78 .55 -0.35
Abandonment .29 .23 -1.54
Medical Neglect .99 1.03 -0.01
Supervision Neglect .49 .33 -1.07
Sexual Abuse 1.98 1.18 1.14
Physical Neglect 1.91 1.49 0.83
Physical Abuse 1.04 .70 0.07
Highest Grade Completed .82 .16 -1.00

of
Youth Has Substance Abuse .53 .28 -1.19
Problem

ro
Truancy History .44 .22 -1.62
Male .21 .17 -1.97*
Age .55 .12 -2.66**
Years Served in TYC
African American -p
1.13
9.12
.20
7.57
0.67
2.67**
re
White 4.03 3.75 1.50
Sentence Length .98 .02 -1.18
Gang-Related Offense .60 .62 -0.50
lP

Gang Activity During Confinement 2.35 .29 6.99***

Multiple of Treatment 2.03 .45 3.18***
Danger to Self 3.13 1.53 2.33*
na

Danger to Others 1.16 .77 0.22

Chaotic Home 1.51 .52 1.21
Violent Toward Family .75 .41 -0.53
ur

Instant Offense Aggravated 2.65 1.89 1.37

Robbery
Instant Offense Aggravated Sexual 6.88 4.79 2.78**
Jo

Assault
Youth is Suicidal 1.58 .99 0.72
2
Model χ 200.54***
Pseudo R2 .515
Correctly Classified 99.02%
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 3. Logistic Regression Model for 99th Percentile for Total Misconduct (Reduced Model)
Variable OR SE z
Total Adjudications 1.18 .07 2.69**
Male .19 .14 -2.33*
Age .46 .07 -4.95***
African American 2.58 1.09 2.25*
Gang Activity During Confinement 2.30 .25 7.67***
Multiple of Treatment 2.16 .45 3.73***
Danger to Self 3.06 1.26 2.72**
Instant Offense Aggravated Sexual 8.27 3.83 4.57***
Assault
Model χ2 173.10***
2
Pseudo R .444

of
Correctly Classified 98.97%
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

ro
Variable
Total Adjudications
OR -p
Table 4. Logistic Regression Model for 99th Percentile for Violent Misconduct (Full Model)

1.05
SE
.04
z
1.42
re
Prior Out of Home Placements 1.08 .06 1.45
Total Court Referrals .97 .05 -0.54
lP

Emotional Abuse .63 .14 -2.14*

Abandonment 1.55 .32 2.12*
Medical Neglect .86 .29 -0.45
na

Supervision Neglect .98 .18 -0.13

Sexual Abuse 1.26 .25 1.16
Physical Neglect 1.06 .27 0.23
ur

Physical Abuse 1.32 .27 1.37

Highest Grade Completed .96 .05 -0.74
Youth Has Substance Abuse .86 .15 -0.87
Jo

Problem
Truancy History 1.17 .18 1.00
Male 2.38 .83 2.50**
Age .52 .04 -9.43***
Years Served in TYC .90 .05 -1.88†
African American 1.70 .25 3.60***
White .97 .19 -0.15
Sentence Length .99 .01 -1.88†
Gang-Related Offense .95 .18 -0.28
Gang Activity During Confinement 2.24 .16 10.96***
Multiple forms of Treatment 1.47 .10 5.54***
Danger to Self 1.72 .26 3.53***
Danger to Others .96 .14 -0.25
Chaotic Home 1.17 .11 1.69
Violent Toward Family 1.02 .16 0.14
 Journal Pre-proof

Instant Offense Aggravated .89 .14 -0.73

Robbery
Instant Offense Aggravated Sexual 1.11 .21 0.51
Assault
Instant Offense Murder .49 .15 -2.35*
Youth is Suicidal 1.12 .22 0.56
Model χ2 545.52***
Pseudo R2 .232
Correctly Classified 90.27%
†p<.06, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

of
Table 5. Logistic Regression Model for 99th Percentile for Violent Misconduct (Reduced Model)
Variable OR SE z
Emotional Abuse .79 .14 -1.34

ro
Abandonment 1.64 .31 2.59**
Male 2.25 .75 2.44*
Age
African American
Gang Activity During Confinement
-p .55
1.64
2.39
.03
.20
.17
-11.95***
3.99***
12.30***
re
Multiple Forms of Treatment 1.54 .10 6.38***
Danger to Self 1.90 .27 4.51
lP

Instant Offense Murder .31 .09 -4.18***

Model χ2 484.39***
2
Pseudo R .206
na

Correctly Classified 90.15%

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 1. Post-Estimation ROC Curve for 99th Percentile Total Misconduct (Full Model)
1.00
0.75
Sensitivity

0.50

of
0.25

ro
0.00

0.00 0.25

Area under ROC curve = 0.9721

0.50
-p
1 - Specificity
0.75 1.00
re
Figure 2. Post-Estimation ROC Curve for 99th Percentile Total Misconduct (Reduced Model)
lP
1.00

na
0.75

ur
Sensitivity

0.50

Jo
0.25
0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

1 - Specificity
Area under ROC curve = 0.9605
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 3. Post-Estimation ROC Curve for 99th Percentile Violent Misconduct (Full Model)
1.00
0.75
Sensitivity

0.50

of
0.25

ro
0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 -p

1 - Specificity
0.75 1.00
re
Area under ROC curve = 0.8219
lP

Figure 4 Post-Estimation ROC Curve for 99th Percentile Violent Misconduct (Reduced Model)
1.00

na
0.75

ur
Sensitivity

Jo
0.50
0.25
0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

1 - Specificity
Area under ROC curve = 0.8029
 Journal Pre-proof

Highlights

Younger age, African-American status, gang activity during confinement, being a danger to self,
and involvement in multiple forms of treatment evince a higher risk of engaging in the 99th
percentile of total and violent misconduct regardless of model specification.

Other factors such as commitment offense, adverse childhood experiences, and sex have
differential effects depending on whether the 90th or 99th percentile thresholds are considered.

Youth in the 90th percentile account for 49% of total misconduct and 50% of violent misconduct.

Youth in the 99th percentile account for 11% of total misconduct and 51% of violent misconduct.

of
We discuss implications for policy and practice and the importance of understanding antisocial
development of youthful offenders and their institutional maladjustment.

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo